Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Densities in Configurations 1
- Thread starter lucason
- Start date
-
1
- #2
You could simply put a $PRP@CSDENSITY in your DESIGN TABLE.
But my gut tells me you're gonna need more than this.
What are you going to do with these densities?
Tell me more about why you need this and I'll take another stab at it.![[jester]](/data/assets/smilies/jester.gif "[jester] [jester]")
But my gut tells me you're gonna need more than this.
What are you going to do with these densities?
Tell me more about why you need this and I'll take another stab at it.
tatej@usfilter.com
aka: Little Debbie's Boy-Toy
- Thread starter
- #3
We have the same components manufactured from a wide variety of materials - I need to be able to switch between configurations and have SolidWorks calculate the mass properties.
I tried the string you suggested in a design table but this did not have the desired effect. The design table just lists the material names as configs and the next column was the string you suggested with the appropriate material density next to the config name.
Anything else I can try?
I tried the string you suggested in a design table but this did not have the desired effect. The design table just lists the material names as configs and the next column was the string you suggested with the appropriate material density next to the config name.
Anything else I can try?
I don't know about 2003, but in previous versions it's not possible to have configuration specific densities (the defined density is valid for all configs). You should have diferent files for diferent densities and the use of DT's don't alter the situation.
TateJ
That's really a way to avoid the limitation. But you are masking the real mass properties of the configs (which remain equal). So I think there are some issues for more complex applications:
- the rest of the mass properties (moments of inertia )are inconsistent with the given information on the drawing
- usisng the part in assemblies, the mass properties of the assemblies are inconsistent (specially for moments of inertia and center of gravity).
Do you agree?
I think the best way is still having different files for different densities.
That's really a way to avoid the limitation. But you are masking the real mass properties of the configs (which remain equal). So I think there are some issues for more complex applications:
- the rest of the mass properties (moments of inertia )are inconsistent with the given information on the drawing
- usisng the part in assemblies, the mass properties of the assemblies are inconsistent (specially for moments of inertia and center of gravity).
Do you agree?
I think the best way is still having different files for different densities.
- Thread starter
- #10
macPT, you are right, it all depends on what lucason needs to do with these parts.
The absolute best way would be to use different files for different densities.
Have either of you played around with envelopes?
I'm just thinking of another idea I'd like to try.
I'll get back to you...
The absolute best way would be to use different files for different densities.
Have either of you played around with envelopes?
I'm just thinking of another idea I'd like to try.
I'll get back to you...
tatej@usfilter.com
aka: Little Debbie's Boy-Toy
OK...
Now I have the absolute best solution.
Step 1. Create a PART1 to control the physical size of the part.
Step 2. Start a new part & insert a BASE PART (this would be PART1).
Repeat this for each material you need.
The changes you make to the physical parrameters of PART1 are automatically reflected in all the other parts!
All the other parts can control the material properties.
Now I have the absolute best solution.
Step 1. Create a PART1 to control the physical size of the part.
Step 2. Start a new part & insert a BASE PART (this would be PART1).
Repeat this for each material you need.
The changes you make to the physical parrameters of PART1 are automatically reflected in all the other parts!
All the other parts can control the material properties.
tatej@usfilter.com
aka: Little Debbie's Boy-Toy
Step 1. Create your part - name it something that says: "This part exists only to control the actual size of my parts" like SIZE.SLDPRT. This will be your BASE PART.
Step 2. Start a new part - STEEL.SLDPRT. Then INSERT BASE PART, and select SIZE.SLDPRT.
Step 3. Set up your MATERIAL PROPERTIES for STEEL.SLDPRT.
Step 4. Repeat Steps 2 & 3; but this time make ALUMINUM.SLDPRT.
Now you can make any "physical" changes to SIZE.SLDPRT, and see them reflected in STEEL.SLDPRT & ALUMINUM.SLDPRT.
I haven't tried making changes to the "material" parts - just to see what happens - but, I'm thinking you could pretty much do whatever you want to them. Just be aware that changes to the BASE PART will affec all the "material" parts created downstream.
If this don't clear it up for you, then post your e-mail address and I'll send you an example.
Step 2. Start a new part - STEEL.SLDPRT. Then INSERT BASE PART, and select SIZE.SLDPRT.
Step 3. Set up your MATERIAL PROPERTIES for STEEL.SLDPRT.
Step 4. Repeat Steps 2 & 3; but this time make ALUMINUM.SLDPRT.
Now you can make any "physical" changes to SIZE.SLDPRT, and see them reflected in STEEL.SLDPRT & ALUMINUM.SLDPRT.
I haven't tried making changes to the "material" parts - just to see what happens - but, I'm thinking you could pretty much do whatever you want to them. Just be aware that changes to the BASE PART will affec all the "material" parts created downstream.
If this don't clear it up for you, then post your e-mail address and I'll send you an example.
tatej@usfilter.com
aka: Little Debbie's Boy-Toy
EVEN BETTER!
That's a nice idea TateJ. But I think we can improve it. Why 3 parts? You can have as much parts as different materials: in this case only 2 are needed. Just choose one to be the Base Part (the one that control the dimensions), lets say the steel part. The Alu part just controls the different density (when editing the dimentions in the Alu part you are changing the steel part also, and vice-versa). I think, until now, that this is the best solution.
That's a nice idea TateJ. But I think we can improve it. Why 3 parts? You can have as much parts as different materials: in this case only 2 are needed. Just choose one to be the Base Part (the one that control the dimensions), lets say the steel part. The Alu part just controls the different density (when editing the dimentions in the Alu part you are changing the steel part also, and vice-versa). I think, until now, that this is the best solution.
If you create all the "material" parts using the same - but separate - base part, then you have added flexibility in that you can modify each part individually, or make universal changes via the base part.
And, sure you can have all the parts you want.
I only did 1 base & 2 material parts for the sake of an example.
I have an example I can e-mail.
And, sure you can have all the parts you want.
I only did 1 base & 2 material parts for the sake of an example.
I have an example I can e-mail.
tatej@usfilter.com
aka: Little Debbie's Boy-Toy
swapnilengineer
Mechanical
Tatej,
Can you send me the example file for the same?
Swapnil_k@vsnl.com
Can you send me the example file for the same?
Swapnil_k@vsnl.com
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question